If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Three "max the levy for the children - its a no brainer" candidates? NOT a catchy slogan - too wordy. Is this some form of Slate? I hope not; Ideologically monolithic blocks of school board members who vote in utter lock-step are SO last year. I’d love to have you show me where you found that particular campaign platform plank, so that we can stand and cast aspersions together...

...Although nothing could ever seem quite as exciting as the laugh-a-minute clown car that’s taken over the center ring of our circus these days; get your chuckles now before it’s driven out...

You are talking about a clown car? Really? Tell us with a straight face that you don't think the 5 people that have become 3 aren't running together. You can't. If this community votes for 2 or 3 of these boz, uh people, we will end up being the nail and they will be the hammer. Buttimer, Estes, Hill are even worse than Nelson or Taylor. Kramer is even up. If the voters here don't know these 3, I can't urge strongly enough to abstain and vote for the 2 incumbents.

I watched the board meetings. All of this cronyism is new to me. For example, doesn't anyone see how strange it is for teachers to be friends with current parents on Facebook? In my old districts, parents and teachers were strongly discouraged to friend each other on social media until their student graduated. Too much potential for conflict of interest, I'm sure. It looks like there are a lot of moms who friend their kids' teacher. While I have the utmost respect for (most) teachers, I do wonder about those motives since I'm really not interested in my kid's teacher's personal life. I'd rather focus on how my kids are learning and it kind of concerns me that some teachers are spending all of this time and energy into saving their boss. With that said, I have never seen my own child's teacher speak on camera at these board meetings and I have never asked her about it, either. I think a lot of teachers are avoiding those meetings and I don't blame them.

I see the same thing with some teachers and their relationship with Gordon as there doesn't seem to be any line of authority. Don't get me wrong, collaborative leaders with involved unions are great; but it seems D41 has crossed some lines here. Both the PTA and GEEA seen overinvolved. As my kids would say, "People need to stay in their lane".

This probably is all water under the bridge now since the board has made their decision. I would hope the next leader would act a bit more professionally and look forward to seeing how the collegial relationships between teachers/parents/community members are handled in the future.

I watched the board meetings. All of this cronyism is new to me. For example, doesn't anyone see how strange it is for teachers to be friends with current parents on Facebook? In my old districts, parents and teachers were strongly discouraged to friend each other on social media until their student graduated. Too much potential for conflict of interest, I'm sure. It looks like there are a lot of moms who friend their kids' teacher. While I have the utmost respect for (most) teachers, I do wonder about those motives since I'm really not interested in my kid's teacher's personal life. I'd rather focus on how my kids are learning and it kind of concerns me that some teachers are spending all of this time and energy into saving their boss. With that said, I have never seen my own child's teacher speak on camera at these board meetings and I have never asked her about it, either. I think a lot of teachers are avoiding those meetings and I don't blame them.

I see the same thing with some teachers and their relationship with Gordon as there doesn't seem to be any line of authority. Don't get me wrong, collaborative leaders with involved unions are great; but it seems D41 has crossed some lines here. Both the PTA and GEEA seen overinvolved. As my kids would say, "People need to stay in their lane".

This probably is all water under the bridge now since the board has made their decision. I would hope the next leader would act a bit more professionally and look forward to seeing how the collegial relationships between teachers/parents/community members are handled in the future.

You have written a post that I have wanted to write for months. Have never understood that.

Maybe this has been a different era where the egregious actions by the current Board have initiated this public outcry from staff where there hasn't been in the past.

That can apply to the over reaching done by the current Board majority. Unfortunately, this behavior is not

How quickly we forget. Two words. Think Tank. Meets your qualifications of "egregious actions by the Board" and "initiated public outcry".

"Overreaching" - Let's not forget that Think Tank was an initiative of the board. Apparently Ms. Nelson wanted to "get in the weeds" on that issue. However, when her new board counterparts questioned the very initiative she directed and implemented, she falsely accused them of violating board policy.

The only difference is the board was in agreement with the super on that issue. And from what I saw, teachers feared Riebock. Not saying that was better, but maybe we need a leader somewhere in the middle?

How quickly we forget. Two words. Think Tank. Meets your qualifications of "egregious actions by the Board" and "initiated public outcry".

"Overreaching" - Let's not forget that Think Tank was an initiative of the board.

interesting way to rewrite history to fit your narrative. From the Think Tank website:

The District 41 Think Tank started in 2011 with a group of teachers and administrators and parents.

Think Tank started in 2011 and went up to a vote in March 2013. A two year process in which multiple sessions were held hardly seems comparable to a board voting to end the super's contract and selecting a recruiting firm in a single night....

And I would argue apples vs. oranges. It's 2:49 PM . . . no plow has been down my street yet. There is no benefit of serving on a village board past or present. You're just wrong.

Like how I added “appointed”?

Ah, these three posts made me nostalgic for the old message board. Remember when we used to be able to fight about everything and still be neighborly and friends. Those days were nice. Sucks we’re not friends anymore and that i hate you.

interesting way to rewrite history to fit your narrative. From the Think Tank website:

"The District 41 Think Tank started in 2011 with a group of teachers and administrators and parents."

Think Tank started in 2011 and went up to a vote in March 2013. A two year process in which multiple sessions were held hardly seems comparable to a board voting to end the super's contract and selecting a recruiting firm in a single night....

I know it's been awhile. Let's revisit. The board directed the super and admin to come up with a plan which resulted in Think Tank. Also, they might have started researching in 2011, but the public didn't know anything about it until the end of 2012. From the first word to the public from the board (December 2012) to adoption was 3 months.

Didn't the board say they've been talking about this with Gordon since last spring? Not one night. They explained they delayed starting the search to try to help Gordon and the district, per Gordon's request. Sounds like they knew they'd have to hire a search firm right away when they went public. Whether you agree with the decision to not re-new Gordon or not, it seems reasonable approach.

Ah, these three posts made me nostalgic for the old message board. Remember when we used to be able to fight about everything and still be neighborly and friends. Those days were nice. Sucks we’re not friends anymore and that i hate you.

Rumor has it Senak resigned last night. Which leads me to believe that the Apex project passed 4-3 with President. Mc. breaking the tie.

I know it's been awhile. Let's revisit. The board directed the super and admin to come up with a plan which resulted in Think Tank. Also, they might have started researching in 2011, but the public didn't know anything about it until the end of 2012. From the first word to the public from the board (December 2012) to adoption was 3 months.

Didn't the board say they've been talking about this with Gordon since last spring? Not one night. They explained they delayed starting the search to try to help Gordon and the district, per Gordon's request. Sounds like they knew they'd have to hire a search firm right away when they went public. Whether you agree with the decision to not re-new Gordon or not, it seems reasonable approach.

I'm sorry, but we need to revisit again.

Think Tank came out of the Long Range Plan (LRP). The first presentation came in a PUBLIC board meeting on 12/12/2011. Feel free to review the meeting minutes here.

The second presentation came at the 5/29/2012 PUBLIC board meeting. Feel free to review the meeting minutes along with the power point presentation here.

As you can see, the first word to the public was 15 months. I know this doesn't fit the anti-think tank narrative that this was 'sprung' on the public, but the facts above speak differently.

Think Tank came out of the Long Range Plan (LRP). The first presentation came in a PUBLIC board meeting on 12/12/2011. Feel free to review the meeting minutes here.

You can also look at the Agenda Packet for that meeting here. And it had NO indication of what Think Tank was to become (i.e. specialization, grade levels mixed, etc. etc.)

Here was the content of the memo in the packet in relation to Think Tank

Think Tank – Integrated Curricula Approach for 21st Century Teaching & Learning:
The purpose of the Think Tank is to create an opportunity for D41 educators to come
together to “rethink the school day” in order to meet the needs of all learners and provide
for 21st century teaching and learning. In addition, the work group hopes to create ways to
better meet the demands of the rigor of the common core and to embed S.T.E.M. (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) at the elementary level.

The Think Tank is comprised of administrators and teachers from each of the elementary
schools who have been doing a great deal of research by reading current literature including
books and articles and viewing websites and videos. A number of members have attended
various conferences to further expand their learning. The group is in the process of
brainstorming some potential structures and concepts to accomplish the goals of the work.
Guest speakers will join the study group in the next couple of months and group members
will select model sites to visit.

Not very earth shattering at this point. Nor very definitive. It definitely does not scream grade-mixing and specialization yet.

Also, in the minutes you link to there is this gem:

Nest Steps: The group hopes to pilot in 2012-2013

D41 never piloted specialization or mixing grade levels that I recall - they went right to implementation.

Originally Posted by DTM

The second presentation came at the 5/29/2012 PUBLIC board meeting. Feel free to review the meeting minutes along with the power point presentation here.

Those materials mention that Think Tank was thinkin' that elementary schools would have two "families" in the school consisting of K-2 and grades 3-5. While that might imply mixing grades it also might not - the materials aren't clear. In any event, the materials do talk about coming back to the Board with a CONCRETE proposal later in the year. (they also mention piloting again - cue sad trombone )

Originally Posted by DTM

As you can see, the first word to the public was 15 months. I know this doesn't fit the anti-think tank narrative that this was 'sprung' on the public, but the facts above speak differently.

So it's not clear to me that we were ever made aware - for 15 months - what Think Tank was exactly thinking. And it certainly wasn't clear what they were finally going to propose. The fact that the meetings were packed with shocked parents is a pretty good indication that the ideas were indeed sprung upon us. If relatively involved parents were not aware, it's safe to say there was no good communication for those 15 months preceding it.

The premise of innovator and others is that this was sprung on folks 3 months before the vote to accept the recommendation. I am merely pointing out that the process (which changed as it went along due to more research and group meetings) was started 15 months prior and information was shared as updates of the groups work.

Originally Posted by middlein87

You can also look at the Agenda Packet for that meeting here. And it had NO indication of what Think Tank was to become (i.e. specialization, grade levels mixed, etc. etc.)

Here was the content of the memo in the packet in relation to Think Tank

Not very earth shattering at this point. Nor very definitive. It definitely does not scream grade-mixing and specialization yet.

Also, in the minutes you link to there is this gem:

D41 never piloted specialization or mixing grade levels that I recall - they went right to implementation.

Those materials mention that Think Tank was thinkin' that elementary schools would have two "families" in the school consisting of K-2 and grades 3-5. While that might imply mixing grades it also might not - the materials aren't clear. In any event, the materials do talk about coming back to the Board with a CONCRETE proposal later in the year. (they also mention piloting again - cue sad trombone )

The pilot compromise was to phase in the specialization over a couple school years.

So it's not clear to me that we were ever made aware - for 15 months - what Think Tank was exactly thinking. And it certainly wasn't clear what they were finally going to propose. The fact that the meetings were packed with shocked parents is a pretty good indication that the ideas were indeed sprung upon us. If relatively involved parents were not aware, it's safe to say there was no good communication for those 15 months preceding it.

You know as well as I, until a decision gets close to implementation parents/public don't generally pay attention. Also, a certain Lincoln teacher spreading false information also helped whip up folks into a frenzy.